On March 2, 2006, succumbing to unrelenting pressure from neo-cons` nuclear lobby and the increasingly powerful Indian lobby, President Bush signed a nuclear technology-sharing/transfer deal with India. Reportedly, President Bush agreed to share so-called `civilian nuclear technology` with India despite its dubious nuclear weapons programs and its refusal to sign the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). President Bush has single handedly done what last six US presidents refused to do. For decades President Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Bush (Senior) refused to aid India`s nuclear-weapons program by breaking US and international laws meant to reign in nuclear proliferation. If the US Congress will not judiciously kill the ill advised deal, the ripple effects from the U.S. decision to violate international treaties, and reverse decades of non-proliferation policy by permitting sales of nuclear technology and fuels to India will be felt for ages to come.

The details of the deal are largely unknown, but it appears that at least one-third of current and future Indian nuclear plants will be exempt from International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. Experts believe the "Indian-specific" inspection regime envisioned by the Bush administration falls well short of the normal, full-scope inspections practiced worldwide.

India has limited uranium reserves, but thanks to President Bush, US will supply uranium fuel for Indian civilian nuclear reactors, which in turn will free up Indian originated uranium to make nuclear weapons. It is estimated that currently India is producing approximately six to 10 nuclear bombs per year. The deal will certainly boost Indian nuclear weapons production to several dozen a year. By all means, the deal assists and enhances India`s nuclear-weapons program. In the words of one of the deal`s architect turned lobbyist, "the problem is not that India has too many nuclear weapons, it is that they do not have enough." As a good neo-con soldier, President Bush is doing his best to turn India`s dream into a reality.

Last time the US generously handed over the civilian nuclear technology to India, it resulted in a so-called “peaceful nuclear explosion” (detonated on May 18, 1974). The radioactive core for India`s first nuclear device was the plutonium diverted from its American-Canadian supplied civilian nuclear reactor (CIRUS). This time around too, it is hard to imagine how the US will ensure the Indians will not divert or copy the technology transfer for military purposes?

Non-proliferation experts like Dr. Joseph Cirincione (director for non-proliferation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.) are deeply worried of another negative effect stemming from this deal. He believes the deal is setting a “bad example” for other countries pursuing their own nuclear programs. Dr. Cirincione explains, “The lesson Iran is likely to draw is simple: if you hold out long enough, the Americans will cave. All this talk about violating treaties, they will reason, is just smoke. When the Americans think you are important enough, they will break the rules to accommodate you.” He further shares his fears emanating from this deal, “Pakistani officials have already said they expect their country to receive a similar deal, and Israel is surely waiting in the wings. Other nations may decide that they can break the rules, too, to grant special deals to their friends. China is already rumored to be seeking a deal to provide open nuclear assistance to Pakistan. Will Russia decide that it can make an exception for Iran?”

Contrary to Bush Administrations bullish pursuit to modernize Indian nuclear program, serious objections have been raised in India and the United States against this particular deal. American environmentalists, opinion makers (e.g. New York Times & Washington Post), and legislators are questioning the wisdom behind Bush Administration`s desire to modernize Indian nuclear program at the cost of violating international treaties like NPT and in a display of barefaced defiance of a “Nuclear Suppliers Group” ban.

The deal drew wide criticism from all corners of Earth, including from the US media and lawmakers. Both Republicans and Democrats legislators in the US Congress angered over being kept in dark about the deal promised the White House an uphill battle.

Republicans and Democrats legislators in the US Congress are deeply concerned over the nuclear deal. Purportedly, the deal was conceived by a few senior Bush administration officials and was never reviewed by the departments of State, Defense or Energy prior to the joint-announcement.

Apparently, the US Congress was left out of loop. Even the Bush loyalists like, chairman of the Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation, Republican Congressman Ed Royce issued veiled warning, "the US-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation has implications beyond US-India relations. In this process, the goal of curbing nuclear proliferation should be paramount. Congress will continue its careful consideration of this far-reaching agreement."

Democratic Congressman Edward Markey most vocally criticized the deal by saying, "America cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a barstool. We can`t tell Iran, a country that has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, that they can`t have [uranium] enrichment technologies while simultaneously carving out a special exemption from nuclear-proliferation laws for India, a nation that has refused to sign the treaty." Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Senator Richard Lugar and Republican, Congressman Henry Hyde both have made no secret of their reservations about the deal.

Dismissing critics who charged that the agreement with New Delhi would prompt nations such as Pakistan to seek similar treatment and escalate their own weapons production, Bush said, "Pakistan and India are different countries, with different needs and different histories". Apparently, President Bush was referring to A.Q. Khan, the former head of Pakistan`s nuclear program, who allegedly ran a black-market operation selling nuclear secrets and technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya. In response, the non-proliferation experts point to India`s unholy record of proliferating nuclear technology to Iran, and Iraq (President Bush`s axis of evil).

India has a long history of horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation. It is public knowledge that India`s nuclear weapons are developed from the radioactive cores diverted from her so-called civilian nuclear reactors. Not only that, India also built a long rap sheet of nuclear proliferation by callously paddling WMD technologies to the supposedly pariah nations like Iran and Iraq.

Indian Nuclear/WMD Proliferation Record:

Proliferation to Iran

India has a distinct record of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) collaboration with Iran. Although this collaboration can be traced to as far back as 1970s, following is a list of most glaring examples of Indian WMD proliferation to Iran:

Following Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi`s 1974 official visit to Tehran, Iran and India announced contacts will be made "between the atomic energy organizations in the two countries in order to establish a basis for cooperation in this field." [1]

Reportedly, in 1975 Iran hosted nuclear technical advisers from (among others) India who worked on its nuclear program.[2]

During 1980 and1983, Iran requested Indian help in completing the Bushehr reactor after West Germany halted work on the project in 1980. [3]

Indian nuclear collaboration with Iran goes at least as far back as 1982. In 1982, the Indian radio and BBC Summary of World Broadcasts reported that India will send a group of nuclear engineers and scientists to Iran. They supposedly inspected the Bushehr nuclear power plant to study the problems.

On July 1, 1989, officials from Indian State Trading Corporation in Bombay admited that they sold about 60 tons of thionyl chloride (a mustard gas or nerve agent precursor) to Iran for approximately $50,000. Allegedly, the same year another Indian State Trading Company`s supplier, Transpek Private Ltd., sold about 257 tons more of the chemical to Iran. [4]

On February 1, 1991, Indian Atomic Energy Commission announced that India will seek to export its nuclear technology. Following the Indian announcement the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran negotiates to purchase nuclear technology or expertise from India. As a result, India and Iran exchange nuclear scientists. [5]

In the October of same year (1991), Iran`s Deputy Foreign Minister Alaeddin Borujerdi met Indian Prime Minister Narasimha Rao in New Delhi to discuss the purchase of 10MW reactor. Finally on November 11, 1991 the Indian Foreign Minister Sing Solanki signed a technical cooperation deal with Iran ensuring the delivery of 10MW reactor to Iran. [6]

In a Middle East Defense News June 8, 1992 report, it was announced, Iran negotiated the purchase of a 10MW nuclear research reactor subsequently installed at the Moallem Kalayeh site. Though the construction on the Moallem Kalayah site had already begun in 1987.

Another Indian company, Transpek Industry Ltd., in 1990, won an estimated $12.5 million bid to install and commission a turn-key chemical plant in Iran. By 1996 the company built the world`s largest manufacturing facility for thionyl chloride outside of Europe. [7]

In November 1994, the German intelligence reported that an Indian consortium was building a pesticide plant that could be linked to the production of chemical weapons in Iran. [8]

On January 30, 1995, the German Intelligence Agency (BND) stated that Indian companies were aiding Iran in its development of tabun and sarin. [9]

In its January 1995 report, the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reported that Indian firms have provided equipment and raw materials to Iran, which aided the Iranian development of chemical weapons. [10]

Reportedly, an Indian nuclear scientist Dr. Y.S.R. Prasad who retired in 2000 made at least two visits to Iran`s Bushehr nuclear facility. Mr. Chidambaram, a former head of the Atomic Energy Commission, acknowledged Dr. Prasad`s work in Iran. He said Dr. Prasad "originally went to Iran as part of an IAEA assignment. Later, he went back to Bushehr under a private contract with the Iranians."

The Hindustan Times, quoted a classified government document, which stated Dr. Prasad spent years working on India`s atomic energy programmes, did not seek government permission to go to Iran. [11]

The most damning admission of Indian nuclear proliferation to Iran came in December 2003. When pressed by Iranian reporters, the Indian external affairs minister Yashwant Sinha said "most certainly between Iran and India, there would be collaboration, there is collaboration".

In 2004, the US State Department blacklisted two Indian scientists. The Indian nuclear scientists were charged with nuclear proliferation to Iran. The US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained, "The cases reflected poor Indian commitment to non-proliferation."

In yet another instance, the US sanctioned two Indian firms for selling prohibited items to Iran.

Proliferation to Iraq

Likewise, Indian-Iraqi nuclear relations date back to 1974, when Saddam Hussein flew to India specifically to sign a nuclear cooperation treaty with the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.

The little known nuclear cooperation treaty involved the exchange of scientists, training, and technology. After the destruction of the Iraqi (French-supplied) Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, Iraq severly limited the exchange of scientists for fear of revealing its clandestine program, but till then, Iraqi scientists were working in India`s plutonium separation labs. The same Iraqi scientists who gained valuable training and experience from working in Indian nuclear labs later took charge of the nuclear fuel reprocessing unit supplied to Iraq by the Italian company CNEN. An Indian scientist trained the Iraqi scientist at Atomic Energy Commission`s computer center on the use of nuclear computer codes. [12]

In 1979, Iraq sent engineers to visit India`s nuclear establishments and scientists. [13]

CNN reported that Investigators say between 1998 and 2001, an Indian company NEC Engineers Private Ltd. illegally shipped 10 consignments (worth $800,000) of highly sensitive equipment, including titanium vessels and centrifugal pumps, to Iraq. NEC reportedly built the chemical plant in the city of Fallujah. In a statement by NEC Engineers Private Ltd`s project manager, N. Katturajan said the chemical facility was controlled by Iraqi military. According to CNN “official at NEC Engineers Private Ltd. said large amounts of chlorine were removed from the Fallujah chemical complex, which was constructed by Indian engineers. Experts say chlorine can be used in the production of chemical weapons like mustard gas and nerve agents.” For their services rendered the Indian managers from NEC Engineers` Private Limited demanded $1 million. [14]

India has a record of proliferating WMDs through knowledge support and material transport. It has a huge manpower trained in nuclear secrets, which inherently makes it a considerable knowledge transfer risk. American nuclear technology transfer to India will only exponentially increase the odds of American nuclear secrets being leaked to whole world.

Even if by some miracle India does not leak the American secrets to other nations, the technology will for sure find its way to Indian military nuclear weapons program. Anyone with even rudimentary knowledge of how nuclear technology works knows there are no fundamental differences between so-called `civilian` and `military` nuclear facilities. No matter how one designates a nuclear facility, all it takes to fashion a nuclear weapon is a transfer of irradiated fuel (e.g. plutonium) from a nuclear reactor to reprocessing plant. India is not a NPT signatory and has a record of diverting nuclear fuel from its civilian facilities to weapons program. World community will have to take Bush Administration`s word that India will not misuse US technology to modernize and bolster its nuclear weapons stockpile.

If the Bush Administration in its pursuit of contain-China-by-building-up-India policy can be callus enough to unilaterally violate the NPT, -- by transferring latest US nuclear technology to India -- it is anyone`s guess why or how it will guarantee that such a transfer will not benefit India`s nuclear weapons program?

On the other hand, for different reasons, even some Indian voices are joining the opposition to this deal. At the heart of Indian opposition were India`s Fast Breeder Reactors [FBR]. Americans were demanding the FBRs to be separated from Indian military nuclear facilities. But the leading Indian scientists who believe their nuclear program to be much more advanced than Americans`, especially its FBR program, succeeded in keeping the FBRs out of Indian civilian nuclear facilities list. They believe FBRs to be the salvation for the unhindered production of fissile material for its unverifiable nuclear weapons. Therefore, they staunchly opposed categorization of its FBRs as civilian nuclear facilities.

India`s first fast breeder nuclear reactor (adopted from the French reactor design) has already completed 20 years of work. The FBTR is located at the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research [IGCAR] at Kalpakkam. Indian experts envision FBRs to be the technology that can secure India`s energy future as it can convert thorium (readily available in India) into U-233. Such reactors also form the second stage of India`s nuclear program, converting Uranium 238 present in nature to plutonium. It is basically an invaluable source of unaccounted fissile material for India`s nuclear weapons.

Ironically, highly suspicious Indian scientists who also belong to the Swadeshi Science Movement (Vijnana Bharti) believe the U.S. offer of collaboration in India`s nuclear research to be a tactic to steal Indian technology. Vijnana Bharti`s organizing Secretary A. Jayakumar, in an open letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, said, “The deal offers no tangible benefits to India”. Mr. Jayakumar said “the American offer of reciprocity and collaboration in our nuclear research and development is nothing more than the ancient tactic of Dhrithrashtra embrace.” He further complained, “experience shows that either [U.S] would stall it, or steal it.” Mr. Jayakumar asked the government not to surrender Indian interests to the U.S. and finally warned, “otherwise all patriotic citizens of this land, cutting across political and academic lines, would take to the streets”.

It`s also worth mentioning that the IGCAR has a tainted safety and hazard record. According to IGCAR, in 1987, during a fuel transfer process, a tube that guides fuel into the reactor snapped. Then in 2002, 75kg of radioactive sodium leaked inside a purification cabin.

The deal gave India a final say over which reactors to open to inspection and which ones to declare secret military sites, where weapons continue to be produced. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration caved in to Indian demands and allowed it to classify FBRs as military sites. This one misclassification will essentially enable India to secretly produce unlimited nuclear weapons. And for some unfathomable reason, Bush administration officials said this move would lead to fewer nuclear weapons. But critics were quick to argue that the US reversed decades of precedent with the deal, which lifted the ban on sales of nuclear materials to a country that has refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty and has a record of diverting fissile material from civilian sites.

Regardless of what proponents or opponents of the deal say, it should be clear to the world that, just as it did in the past, sooner or later India will divert American nuclear technology to its weapons program. The questions Bush Administration and members of Nuclear Suppliers Group should be seriously asking are, will the modernization of Indian nuclear weapons make the world, especially, the South-Asia safer? Will the American technology transfer start a new nuclear weapons race between India and Pakistan vis-à-vis China? Is it wise to destabilize the world by further arming a nation with a history of dishonoring its word? If not, then why the neo-cons in the Bush Administration are hell-bent at undermining the international treaties and conventions by breaking them in spirit and practice?

The greatest irony of this Indo-US deal remains that While America disarms the unarmed, it arms up the well armed. Key Sources:

Reader Comments:

very good to convince

article is too good but it is nothing to do with nuclear proliferation.it is widly accepted that indian nuclear programe is highly advanced and it is indegenous. also if we believe this journalist then i think america should have located the WMD FROM the iraq after its ocupation.foolish article.

prashant, Hungary - 14 March, 2006

we are a responsible democratic nation

it is obvious for u (pakistanies) to criticize and fear about the recent indo-us nuclear deal. But u should also remember that we are a democratic country with no enemies including pak (we consider u as a neighbouring country and an old relative of us). And i as a citizen of india assure u that no damage as assumed by u in ur article will be caused by india.
i also have a suggestion to u (pakistanies)
pls stop this india centric thinking and try to think positively. these are all the steps that are taken by india to become a super power (a country cannot become a super power with out a power full military force) it is one way or the other beneficial for pak too to have a power full nation as its neighbour.

this is purely my own opinion as a citizen of india

indian, Hungary - 14 March, 2006

i know u won't publish this

because this is how a concocted 'research' looks like. this is hilarious. you guys should use some of that imagination in defending and pardening a q khan and your 'accountable' army.

Ahmed Zaveri, Pakistan - 14 March, 2006

Anti India

Anti India sentiments can be clearly seen in this article. While author argues that the deal will increase prolifaration he does not declare the Pak request for simillar deal unjust. If its wrong it should be wrong for both India and Pakistan. This seems to be written to please a typical anti India Pakistani audience.

Raghavendra Kattinakere, Hungary - 14 March, 2006

come on ground reality

Hello mr Adam Gill. i want to ask u about NTP. what this means????? do it means no country would have nukes? Or no country would threat to others nations??? if not then it must not be accepted by educated society who has even 1% self respect.

hey man tell me first the standards and levels of those people who wrote these references. haha. whome u fooling. if u wish i may send u no less than 1000 references where it was written even US, china, france, britain and russia has been involved in Proliferation of nukes. the problem with u is........everyone is politician in todays world. haha. not only u, even i may write a article showing the same type of references and can justify any view.haha. while im a engineer. trust me if any politician, whether of US or of india, will read ur article, he will laugh enough on ur references. give me 2-3 Mn US$. I will give it to journalist of whole the world and they will write so many articles on baseless ground that I may give u no less than even 100-200 “recent” references after 2-3 weeks. haha

My Dear, Mr A K Khan was proved to be guilty. He was caught red handed and 100 rounds of esquires were done with him. He was not blamed on the grounds made in air. He was proved to be father of irani nuke power. while iraq had no nuke bomb. It has also been proved that's why attack on iraq is known as illegal attack. isn't? whome u fooling. U wasting your time on these types of articles. Everyone understand.

Mr adam India turned its dream in reality in 1974 on its own. . Tell me one thing. India is having nuke power from last 32 years what US culd do? Even that time US Pre. Nixon wanted china to attack on india. But india was so much powerful that time that china culdnt. Leave this and tell me what US can do against india now??????? Either accept india as power or not accept. By doing blasting in 1974 and 1998 india has proved she is a nuke power. If US will accept, US will get advantage over china, if not ……… haha …….. we have habit of living in power shortage. we will never accept salvage. Either all nuke powers would hand over all the nukes to UN or accept india also as nuke power. No more choice.

US has tried her best against nukes of india in last 34 years by all means, bans, threatening all. US has known, india can maintain nuke power whether US want or not. now US has just accepted india as a powerful nation at the end. now US want india to turn her dream true against china who is the biggest threat to US now. US came to door of india for help against china not us. haha. US just want to have share in power of todays powerful india and tomorrows far more powerful india.

s tiwari, Hungary - 14 March, 2006

that is a great news, dont be too biased. atleast now we can be freinds with our brothers. dont do biased coverage please

adnan, Pakistan - 14 March, 2006

Response

Bush did not succum to anything, at least not according the CNN anyways. Bush sees the economic potential in India, which has a huge market, and at the same time needs energy desperately. And this is why the deal is going through. Pakistan gets Billion's of dollars in aid (military) you don't see anyone complaining about that? And by the way India did not have a scientist that proliferated nuclear-weapons related technologies to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Which is another reason why this deal was not exteded to Pakistan because US understands that they are incapable to safeguarding anything. Also it's worth mentioning that Pakistan also did not sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Indian, Hungary - 14 March, 2006

Then what is the solutions?

It's a nice article, which has provided another view to look into India-US nukes deal. One has to think considering all these factors. By providing nukes to India, does it cause any problem to South-Asia countries and to this planet? At the same time just relaying on history and few unpleasant incidents should not become the obstacles of future growth of any country including Pak. Also Pak is saying – it should also get same deal what India is getting. My question to you is – is it right time for Pak to be included in this deal? If the answer is YES then on which factors and conditions and if NO then when and what US expect from Pak to get it. Hope to get ingenuous answers from you.
Secondly, as a technical person my mind always thinks logically and as per that: If currently nuke is the only source to generate electricity without harming environment then don't you think it's a responsibility of all this big boss countries to make it available to all nations with satisfactory rates, specially when they don't want to proliferation nukes and technology. Is anybody demanding this as a basic need for human being on this planet?

satish laddha, Hungary - 14 March, 2006

Mr. Adnan Gill,

Your article only shows the frustation inside you for hailing from a country which is has turned out to be a failed political experiment, Pakistan.

You seem to have more information on India than a pakistani spy in the country.

Moses, United Kingdom - 14 March, 2006

An article should be like a girl's skirt, short enough to maintain interest and long enough to cover teh subject. Unfortunately your article is long with so many bullet points that it looks like a thesis and looks equally boring. Oh by the way it lacks substance too

Shyam, Hungary - 14 March, 2006

It is OK

Your thoughts are limted to sell them in your own country. India as you wrote if is already producing WMD, than what is the problem of india america pact. Ties between Iran and Iraq are not same as Pak has with korea(north afcoarse) and china. Any way it is upto Americans to decide what is good for them or not and also for India And Pak to decide what we want.Mr gill wishing you all the best on India bashing. bye

arvind, Hungary - 14 March, 2006

Your off base

First, why was there no mention of the obious Mr. Khan of Pakistan? He started the real destabilizing of the "World" by his total disregard of international laws. Second, if all you say is correct, then why did Mr. (not elected) Musharaff ask for the same deal? Third, no matter what India obtains legally from the US will surely be obtained illegally as has been the case prviously by Pakistan. Finally, for the record, India has been attacked by not just Pakistan, but China in its recent history.

Shai, United Kingdom - 15 March, 2006

Please stop whining, u are not gonna get the same deal as what India got

All said and done, please wakeup to the truth. Such repeated articles just show that Pakistan is desperate to be treated in the same league as India. I guess the intent of the article is to vent out your frustration and has nothing to do with non-proliferation, safety, security etc.

mechprince, United Kingdom - 15 March, 2006

propaganda

u guys should be happy that we have shared our expertise with two islamic nations.

why this prejudice??

what happened to ur call of MUSLIM SOLIDAIRITY????

any way the world no longer belive in what u say... u have little credibility left in the international community.

even the senators who are opposed to the deal in usa donot question our impeccable record in non proliferation.

they only oppose the deal in principle.
so better come out with a different theorey yhe next time around...

jhashua, Slovenia - 15 March, 2006

Just like Bush's ideas are India- specific your article seems Pakistan specific. Your hate India article may work for a narrow audience but the world is bigger than that.

For all the flaws that you point out in the India Nuclear argument the situation is India has been accepted in the nuclear club even if the deal doesnt go through. India will have Thorium based reactors in sometime and Thorium is plenty available in India.

Grow up and start acting like a grown up. Dont start crying evertime something good happens to India

Rishi, Hungary - 15 March, 2006

We do not agree

We Indian - Americans do not agree with your view points. India and other countries will continue with their nuke program regardless of the deal. In any case, this deal will be ratified by Congress...you cannot stop it.

Gautam, United Kingdom - 15 March, 2006

the author displays a brilliant imagination capability in alleging that India has nuclear and chemical weapons dealing with Iran and Iraq. but then who is listening ?

as a matter of fact, in high tech knowledge business there is only one invaluable resource i.e. human resource. undoubtly Indian engineers and scientists will gain access to till now inaccessabile domains of knowledge and India will be able to utilize that expertize in other areas including its nuclear weapons program.

for the uninitiated, currently India is the leader in the FBR knowledge domain. IAEA has accepted that data from Indian establishment on FBR is currently unmatched.

To make the world less dependent on fossil fuel, a major global research initiative is required. Today thinking of any major global research program without a substantial Indian participation is not possible. Indian participation is not possible without legitimising India's nuclear establishment and enabling India's access to hitherto forbiden knowledge domains.

Overall it is a good deal where everyone has won. India keeps its nuclear weapons while staying out of NPT. It provides IAEA access to its civilian nuclear establishments. IAEA access will help India access the latest security and operational practices. No one will stop India to use the latest practices in its military nuclear establishment, resulting a more secured nuclear infrastructure in the country.

there is nothing in this deal that Pak should be wary about. Pak could be a participant in future global projects depending upon how it is able to control jehadi elements among its midst and when the saner elements are able to take control of the nation.

in my opinion the best friend Pak can have is India and vice versa.

Chan, United Kingdom - 15 March, 2006

You are dreaming adnan

Nice article, though i wish it were true. I think Pak got a sour deal and you guys are just sucking your thumb over it. We didn't need US support for our nuclear program both peaceful and military. US needs us more and its a logical cooperation

Maqbool, Hungary - 15 March, 2006

Stop this!

Folks,
Lets not forget this is politics at an international level.China has played havoc to pakistani ego by fuelling and promoting its alter ego.Now the US is trying to do that to India.lets see.Only difference Indian political class is made of politicians,not generals. in the meantime pakistan will serve its interest better by thinking positive rather trying to spoil a neighbours pride.afterall, pak media does not have the same readership as american, european or even indian media. stop shouting from inside a well.no one will hear you

patrick kumar, Pakistan - 15 March, 2006

Mr Adnan

MR Adnan!pls look at your own courtyard beofre complaning about your neighbours courtyard!if u talk about proliferation!the top story of 2005 was Mr A.Q Khan!i guess you intend to deliberately mask many facts abt pakistan!pls publiash and compare that and then we can decide if the deal is viable or not

What do you think about the story ? Leave your comments!

Heading (Optional)

Your Comments: *

Your Name:*

E-mail (Optional):

City (Optional):

Country (Optional):

Field marked(*) are mandatory.
Note. The PakTribune will publish as many comments as possible but cannot guarantee publication of all. PakTribune keeps its rights reserved to edit the comments for reasons of clarity, brevity and morality.
The external links like http:// https:// etc... are not allowed for the time being to be posted inside comments to discourage spammers.